Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

Eliminating federal unions would be worth the effort. I pity those so weak in talent or so brainwashed that they feel the "need" for union protection. I rarely see action directed at a worker that is not completely warranted and usually overdue. The federal system has adequate safeguards to protect against or correct management abuse. Actually, many new managers are intimidated by the union or too poorly trained to react effectively. The result is that corrective action is often delayed. This hurts evryone, especially those actually doing the work. Locally, federal unions do little but defend poor performers and promote the personal agenda of local leaders. Nationally, unions claim credit for much, but in reality they accomplish virtually nothing. I quit paying dues as soon as I saw how useless federal unions are. It did not take long. Many of my union coworkers are so full of propaganda , hate, and discontent that they depress me. We do not need federal unions.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

The zealots will attack, but they are unable to change the facts. Nationally, federal unions are long on show but short on results. They achieve little beyond promoting political agenda. Locally they are an embarrassment . They waste taxpayer money while worsening the public's perception of us. Those "needing" the union to protect them are below par. Fire them before they do more damage. Unions leaders constantly criticize management, but almost without exception I fould managers to be more honest, sincere, and competent than union reps.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

What "subsidies" are you referring to? No federal funds go to any union that I know of; they are funded by member contributions and dues.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

To retired,
Where else did I read this comment. You must have this saved and repeated at your convenience. I have already replied.
Note, you are retired. You do not need the union. Hope the non retirees who have your attitude do not need someone to defend them.
To analyst DOL,
I have worked for managers who do not respect the rights of the worker or assign too many cases and give unrealistic time frames to do the job and do it properly. Perhaps you never worked for a manager that used intimidation to achieve his goals or tried to force you to work off the clock. I have.
Don't need your pity. I just hope you never have a grievance.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

Most federal union activity is funded by agencies (directly or indirectly). Dues and contibutions cover only a fraction of union costs. If you are unaware that tax money subsidizes your union, you are woefully uninformed. You should avoid responding until after you do some research and independent thinking. Gilson wrote an article for FedSmith on subsidies in 2006. It was a good article, but it grossly understated the costs, especially indirect expenses. Arguing that federal unions are cost effective or self-sufficient is a fool's errand. I have never seen a business case to support continued sudsidy of federal unions. Doing so would only be possible by using fictional assumptions or congressional "logic". I prefer facts, and the fact is federal unions are not cost effective.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

Thorn in the side, no federal money goes "directly" to the union, but at my Agency, we have full-time union reps who are considered to be "on detail" from their regular positions but are paid at the same rate of those positions - and some of these employees are highly graded (GS-14).

So, the taxpayers are essentially paying the unions to operate when they are paying the salaries of full-time union representatives. None of these individuals perform any mission-related Agency work.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

Fed - You waste a lot of official time reading and responding. Your comments rarely have substance - today is no exception. The grievance process is very similar for NBU employees. It is just simplified, less costly, and faster. I pity your coworkers and boss. You must be the pride of your department. Do some work.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

To retired treasury,
Again, you write nothing but negatives without substance. You say there are ample safeguards to protect workers. I cited an example of why this is not true. You say to go back to work. Are you that thin skinned that you cannot accept critisism of your empty comments? You are retired and do not need a union to protect your rights. Perhaps you were a fruswtrated manager? I do not know. In any case learn how to read before you write. And learn that just because I disagree with you, that does not mean I should not write. Last time aI heard we are a democracy with the right to express our opinions. It is not reserved for the right wingers like you.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

Fed - You attack, but your aruments are silly and unsupported. I have worked in both union and non union agencies. NBU employees have the same rights and virtually identical protections. The process is streamlined and better. You are poorly informed, but you have a right to speak. You violate rules by doing so on company time. How much official time do you waste blogging? The more you say the more foolish you appear. Wise up, then get back to work. You would be the first to expect the union to defend your misconduct.

Re: Eliminate Federal Unions

retired various-You said nothing of substance. You appear to not want someone who disagrees with you to say so. Read all of your comments. This is typical of the extreme right and extreme left. learn about democracy first.

Re: Nice Comparison

Fair and balanced? Gilson? He is the one who said he presents the facts to support his position and leaves out facts that do not.

Re: Nice Comparison

And your point is....

I am referring to THIS specific article. Where's the bias?

Re: Nice Comparison

Worker seldom makes sense. He is a chronic complainer who seemingly spends hours a day blogging rather than working. If he got caught he would blame his boss or someone else. I doubt he would accept personal responsibility. He would demand and expect union support. Sadly, he would probably receive it. People who think like him ruin it for others, but they feel entitled regardless.

Re: Nice Comparison

To career LR,
My question is what facts did he leave out that we do not know about? He only gives facts that support his view.

Re: Ironic, isn't it?

It is naive and shallow to credit federal unions for pay and benefits. They claim a lot, but they achieve little. Believeing otherwise is moronic not ironic.

Re: Ironic, isn't it?

You could not have hit the nail harder on the head than what you said. The biggest problem with thr Federal government, is that the unions have been so successful in getting the very protections that the previous posters say negate the need for unions.

Who in their right mind would think that agencies would be willing to pay transit subsidies, child care subsidies or any other meager benefit that they offer their employees. In some ways, it would serve us well for the government to propose to cut some of these benefits just to show the "scabs" that benevolent employer isn't as generous as they would think they are. Everything we enjoy, from the Thrift Benefit Plan, to COLA's to Civil Service/FERS pensions, was won and improved by union advocacy. To say anything different is revisionist history.

What is disappointing is that Federal unions worked hard to get this adminsitration elected. Now it seems they are turning their backs on the very people that helped get them there.

Re: Ironic, isn't it?

Many union officials think and act like politicians - quick to claim credit, slow to accept criticism, have selective memories, and limited integrity. Federal unions usually have little impact on establishing or protecting employee benefits. More often they delay or erode implementation. Arguing otherwise is revisionism. I know, I was there from 1970 to 2007. Few benefits were proposed by unions, and some were actively opposed. I have nothing against unions, but I resent when they claim undeserved credit. They have a role, but they certainly are not cost effective.

Re: Ironic, isn't it?

Hey AFGE Pres---
why should YOU (i.e. unions) be any different than EVERYONE else that put that egomaniac and his crew into office...you can go 'under the bus', too!!!
Sometimes people get JUST what they asked for!!!

And it hasn't even been a year, yet---- just another reason why I withdrew from union participation---YOU don't represent me and my values.

Re: Ironic, isn't it?

To another fed VA,
I assume you are talking about George Bush. Except he was in for a disastrous 8 years.
To fed any,
I agree that the union claims to much. But they have done good for everyone. Perhaps, you are to closed minded to realize this.
Management does the same thing. Management officials make claims that are not true or partially true. Management also leaves out critical information.
Don't be so hard on unions when management does the same thing.

Re: Left out a fact

OMB is the management arm of the administration. We would expect a draft EO to come from that organization as they work for the president. What is your point--that Obama is the entire administration?

Re: Return the Benefits

From 1971 to 2002 I saw my benefits erode steadily and significantly. Using current political logic (as it is applied to unemployment) federal unions can now claim credit for "saving" benefits that would have been lost were it not for their success. That make sense to congressional and WH leaders, but spare me your union propaganda. Federal unions have done nothing to justify their expense except expand their membership base.

Re: 7106 B (1) bargaining mandate

What drivel. Arguing that federal unions are innovative and enhance management effectiveness is laughable. They usually are critical - not in thinking but of any management decision - even those that benefit workers. Many unions fight harder to make management "look" bad than to aid members. If most members were aware of what really goes on they would quit paying dues or demand change. Remaining uninformed is costly. Federal unions should and could be a force for improvement. Sadly, they are not. Their only major accomplishment has been to expand the BU. If they were private firms we would have fired them years ago. I am annoyed to see my tax money wasted to subsidize federal unions; if I had wasted 27 years of dues, I would be livid. Support and defend your union if you must, but don't be a dope.